Furthermore, Plaintiffs should be freely allowed to amend the complaint in lieu of a dismissal, if it appears that by doing so the plaintiffs may state a cause of action. The motion will be granted only if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff could prove no facts consistent the complaint that would entitle the plaintiff to the relief requested. “Typical examples are cases in which the plaintiff’s claim is clearly barred by the statute of limitations, or the plaintiff is asserting a cause of action that is not recognized in this state, or the defendant has some other iron-clad defense as a matter of law.” Tegland & Ende, at 292.For purposes of deciding the motion, all of the factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true. In other words, in the case that commentator Karl Tegland refers to as “the leading modern case” on this point, “ny hypothetical situation conceivably raised by the complaint defeats a CR 12(b)(6) motion if it is legally sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim.” Bravo v. 292, (2011-2012) (allows a party to dismiss a claim only “when it is clear that the plaintiff will never prevail regardless of the facts proven at trial.”).
Ende, Washington Handbook on Civil Procedure, Vol.
Washington courts have said “it must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts consistent with the complaint which would entitle them to relief.” See, e.g., Id. Some attorneys feel that it is an obligatory part of litigation, which it was never intended to be.Dismissal under CR 12(b) is a drastic remedy granted only sparingly and with care, for the effect of granting the motion is to deny the plaintiff his or her day in court. Such motions deny a plaintiff their day in court. However, even if it had merit, such a motion should necessarily be an uphill battle to grant. In reviewing the basis, we came to see that it was largely without merit. Toomey’s Complaint against the State Defendants should be dismissed in its entirety because: (1) Toomey failed to follow the administrative. One of our clients’ was served with a motion to dismiss the other day. Defendants State of Arizona, Gilbert Davidson, and Paul Shannon (collectively State Defendants) move to dismiss Plaintiff Russell Toomey’s Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.